Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

June 15, 2011, Decided

2010-1328

Opinion

 [*900]  Dyk, Circuit Judge.

Stamps.com, Inc. ("Stamps.com") appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity with respect to fifteen claims of eight patents. Stamps.com, Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., No. CV 06-7499, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131104 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2009). We affirm.

Background

Stamps.com and Endicia, Inc. ("Endicia") are competing providers of Internet postage.  [**2] On November 22, 2006, Stamps.com filed suit against Endicia, alleging infringement of 629 claims of eleven patents owned by Stamps.com. Endicia filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. On March 17, 2008, the district court granted Endicia's motion to limit the number of asserted claims. The district court ordered the parties to "limit[ ] the number of asserted claims to fifteen," but stated that it "w[ould] remain flexible if plaintiffs [sic] show[ed] good cause for additional claims." Order Granting Mot. To Limit the Number of Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit, Stamps.com, Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., No. CV 06-7499, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112633 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2008). After some dispute about the number of claims that should be considered for expert discovery, the parties eventually filed Markman briefs limited to the fifteen claims selected by Stamps.com. The district court eventually construed ten claim terms in fifteen claims from seven patents. Three of these claim terms were part of means-plus-function claims.

The eight patents-in-suit generally comprise four groups of technologies:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

437 Fed. Appx. 897 *; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12120 **

STAMPS.COM INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENDICIA, INC. AND PSI SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

Notice: THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by Stamps.Com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17778 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 1, 2011)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 06-CV-7499, Judge Otis D. Wright II.

Stamps.com, Inc. v. Endicia, Inc, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131104 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2009)

CORE TERMS

Stamps, postage, patent, district court, printer, prior art, print, declaration, user, invention, offset, envelope, status report, skill, graphical, indicia, argues, asserted claim, invalidity, disclose, summary judgment, memory, patentee, shipping, teaches, corroborating, specification, coprocessor, disclosure, calculate

Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Anticipation & Novelty, Fact & Law Issues, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Infringement Actions, Summary Judgment, General Overview, Nonobviousness, Evidence, Abuse of Discretion, Description in Publications, Statutory Bars, Public Use Bar, Invention Date & Priority, Conception Date, Reduction to Practice, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Clear & Convincing Proof, Antedating Prior Art References, Burdens of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence, Presumption of Validity, Invention Date Corroboration, Civil Procedure, Supporting Materials, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Specifications, Description Requirement, Means Plus Function, Elements & Tests, Prior Art, Teaching Away From Invention